Towards partisan politics: #Shahbag and the politics of revenge

Protests at Shahbag that
call for the death penalty for Abdul Quader Mollah have been hailed as a move
beyond 'partisan politics' in the spirit of the Arab Spring. Clear government
backing puts this, and the nature of the justice being meted out, in doubt.

There is much that is new in Bangladesh of
late—mass protests inspired to resemble Tahrir Square for one. But there is
also much that is old—like the government’s political calculation behind closed doors on how to use
popular sentiment to move towards an autocratic state by executing opposition
leaders in time for the next election.

The trials are meant to be about trying,
ascertaining guilt or innocence, and punishing individuals responsible for war
crimes committed in 1971. However they have been marred by the fact that only the
leadership classes of the main opposition parties are on trial, a number of
whom were ministers in the last elected Bangladesh government.

Necessary trials

No one can doubt the enormity of the crimes
committed in Bangladesh’s 1971 war of independence from Pakistan, and it is
shocking that nothing has been done until now to end the impunity of the
perpetrators of war crimes. Even conservative estimates have the death toll at
several hundred thousand, although the government’s claim of 3 million, bandied
about in several international media outlets, has no scholarly credibility.

Yet it is figures like these, etched through
repetition by local media into the minds of a new generation now baying for
blood in Bangladesh, that are symptomatic of an emotive
and irrational campaign for (in)justice in Bangladesh.

Let me clearly state that I feel that war
crimes trials need to take place, but fair ones, under international auspices.
Currently, in the light of a harsh media campaign in Bangladesh that has lasted for
years now, the chances of a fair trial seem next to impossible. Indeed The Economist recently uncovered collusion
between the government-prosecution side of the trial and the judiciary. In
addition, the unrelenting media campaign has meant that Shahbag protesters have
made up their minds regarding the guilt of those in the dock, regardless of the
evidence of a doctored trial.

Judicial murder paving the way for autocracy?

Unless fair trial standards are upheld, this
tribunal will go down in history as a political kangaroo court and perpetuate
the poisonous politics that Bangladesh has engaged in since its very
inception. So far Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have been among the most vocal
internationally recognized critics of the current tribunal, and they have both
been calling for fairer trials which they see as necessary for Bangladesh to
come to terms with the past.

That there are war criminals in all the
political parties is widely recognized within Bangladesh, but the targets of
this tribunal have been exclusively from the coalition of parties that formed
the last elected government, namely the Islamist BJI (Jamaat) and the BNP
(Bangladesh National Party). Bangladeshi independent politician and famed war
hero, Kader Siddique, has been one of the few leaders
calling for genuine rather than targeted ‘accountability’. In an ironic twist
of fate that illustrates the complexity of the war crimes issue, he is himself
recorded as committing war crimes in the presence of international media in
1971.

Not to be mistaken for Tahrir

But returning now to the protests: these are
popular protests with numbers in the tens of thousands if not more; but unlike
the Arab uprisings, the present government is basking in them, trying to
utilize them to liquidate their political opposition, and with it, their
prospect of ever being out of office.

Sadly, the Tahrir narrative is so
internationally attractive it appears to have taken hold. Even as important a
liberal outlet as the Huffington Post has blog contributions which appear to support the calls
for the death penalty which are the primary cause of this protest. In this case, it would be
particularly tragic, as there is seeming unanimity among international
observers that these highly politicized trials are not fair by any stretch of
the imagination.

Besides the calls for the death penalty, the
Shahbag protests are calling for the wholesale banning of a political party, banning
of few newspapers and TV channels, and shutting down banks and Business. Now, one doesn’t need to be terribly sympathetic towards
Islamists, progressive sensibilities should be preventive enough from
practicing any sort of censoring of free political expression, even in forms
that one finds particularly disagreeable.

Liberals and progressives could be forgiven for
loving what appears to be the manifestation of another Tahrir Square-like
movement that is calling for political change. But we should look a little
closer before we throw our lot in with this particular movement, as its values
are suspect; and if its demands are met, the consequence for Bangladesh’s
future do not seem particularly democratic.

A Bangladeshi blogger’s comment

I close with the illustrative remarks of one Bangladeshi
blogger who is more circumspect about these protests:

The most distressing
development over the past week has been the name calling one has had to witness
on facebook and twitter. It seems that anyone with doubts about the value of
these protests is a Jamaat sympathiser at best, or a Rajakar (traitor) at
worst. For years, those of us who wanted the 1971 war criminals to face trial
were told that any trial would become a name-calling exercise. Jamaat
sympathisers would look at us condescendingly and say with a smile, “But
brother, whoever disagrees with you, you label a traitor”. The facebook/twitter
discourse over the past few days have validated that point of view. I used to
think liberals welcomed dissent and challenges to their view. Intolerance and takfir were hallmarks
of right wingers like Jamaat. The last week has opened my eyes.

About the author

Mohammad Nakibur Rahman is an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Economics, Tulane University, and PhD Candidate at the
University of New Orleans. Research interests include
Political Economy, International Trade and Risk management. He is the son of an opposition leader standing trial at the ICT.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Security for the future: in search of a new vision

What does ‘security’ mean to you? The Ammerdown Invitation seeks your participation in a new civic conversation about national security in the UK and beyond. Its authors offer an analysis of the shortcomings of current approaches and propose a different vision of the future. Please use the invitation summary document for seminars, workshops and public meetings, and share the responses and insights that emerge.